Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 6 August 2006

Various big media television networks ^ | 6 August 2006 | Various Self-Serving Politicians and Big Media Screaming Faces

[TexasPatriot8]

This is very late I know, but I wasn't able to get on this morning. I had to post this thought though because it stuck in my head most of the day.

I was especially amused by Meet The Press this morning, with Timmy's assertion that somehow REAL Democraty in Iraq should mean that Iraqi's would somehow be supportive of Israel and condemn Hizbollah and not allow for tens of thousands marching in support of the terrorists and against Israel. I don't recall Bush or anyone in the administration suggesting that Democracy was going to make Iraqi's no long be Muslims anymore? I mean, it is their religion that teaches hatred of Israel, not Hussein's vengeful dictatorship. That was such a STUPID and patently ignorant statement Russert made and it's so clear he knew how stupid it was but did it anyway.

The point of Democracy in Iraq was not to make them love Israel and America, it was to show them what freedom and liberty is, and the bottom line is, once exposed to real freedom and liberty, no nation on the face of the Earth has willingly turned away from it or given it up. It's always been taken away. And Democracies do not attack each other. That never has happened in the hisotory of true representative Constitutional Republics and Democracies. And THAT is what opens the door for people to escape the yoke of Islam and stop the cancer of anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, anti-everything not Muslim that permiates the Muslim world. THAT is the point of the war. I don't know anyone who thought that having a real Democracy in Iraq would mean support for Israel. But notices that those anti-Israel marches took place in the southern half of the country, where 99% of the terrorist and Sunni on Shea / Shea on Sunni attacks take place. Not in the north where the Kurds and most of the economic activity and natural resources are. That is quite noteworthy. So of course it wasn't pointed out on Meet the Press. I got quite a kick out of that slanted bit of dialogue that Russert tossed at Secretary Rice.

[CedarDave]

So long as you limit yourself to the gorgeous photography and "feel good" stories. Their political slant, when it comes up, is way left of even the rest of CBS news. Kind of the Bill Moyer's type "smarter than thou" stuff.

I used to watch it when Charles Kuralt was hosting and just caught a more recent show a couple of weeks ago. They used to have a show ending segment on wildlife, flowers, scenic beauty, etc. that was several minutes long. Now they have cut it back to about twenty or thirty fast seconds. So you have even less time to enjoy that part of the show. Still have the politically-correct liberal puff pieces on everything from arts to gays to politics, though.

[greyfoxx39]

My nomination for post of the day.

[Reily]

In my opinion somewhat true.
However why would Iran choose a conventional military option, i.e. symmetric warfare. Asymmetric approach to warfare is still paying significant dividends in the modern 'culturally sensitive' west.

[TexasPatriot8]

Well thank you! Seeing as how I am a Johnny-come-lately to the thread today that REALLY make me feel good. :) Thanks.

[Phsstpok]

I stopped watching when Charles Kuralt was still hosting it and well before his hidden family came to light. Somehow that whole sad episode served as the perfect capstone to this uber liberal show for me.

"We're holy and you must accept our moral judgment of all that you do... but don't you dare apply moral judgments to what we do."

Yep. Ol' friendly Charles Kuralt, whose stories I loved, was a sleazy cheat and liar. Who'd a thunk it?

[CedarDave]

The point of Democracy in Iraq was not to make them love Israel and America, it was to show them what freedom and liberty is, and the bottom line is, once exposed to real freedom and liberty, no nation on the face of the Earth has willingly turned away from it or given it up. It's always been taken away.

Excellent point in an excellent post!

[Phsstpok]

I specifically reject the notion that Iran, or any other of our enemies, are going to have to abandon asymmetric tactics in their attempts to kill us. That is my premise. The "other side" that I'm arguing against, IMHO is insisting that they have to abandon those tactics in order to pose a "real" threat to us that might be classified as "world war 3." That is the basic argument, IMHO.

It's not only the military that insists on fighting the last war. Otherwise well informed observers do the same thing. None of those who disagree with me, particularly MNJ and kabar, are wrong, per se, they just view the question through a different prism.

What they say is absolutely correct. From my point of view, however, it's absolutely irrelevant to the question at hand.

[TexasPatriot8]

Not to butt in but your post caught my eye. I think you're right. A conventional war against Israel is DEFINITELY NOT in Iran's interest. Nor is it for Syria against Iran. I can't remember who it was this past week that said it, but it was so well put it stuck in my head. They said (somewhat paraphrased from lack of memory) that; "Neither Iran or Syria want to directly get into it with Israel. They're much more willing to give Hizbollah what it needs to continue the fight, because the Syrian and Iranian militaries get real thin, real fast, if matched up to the might of the whole Israeli Air Force and Army. That's why Hizbollah is there, because they have been built up for decades as the Elite terrorist force to take on Israel". That was a very astute statement I think. I'm just embarrassed I can't remember who made it. And it is totally logical. You can't hide Main Battle Tanks, IFVs, APC, missile carriers, or other military vehicles, in houses, just like you can't hide fighters, bombers or recon craft in houses. And Iran certainly can't make it's nuclear weapons testing facilities in houses. THAT is the only advantage Hisbollah has and is the very reason why they hide in houses and civilian structures and strike civilian areas as their primary target. It's practically an accident when they actually kill or injure members of the Israeli military. The only engagements with the Israeli military are with supposedly brave Hizbollah terrorists dressed as civilians, attacking from the shadows in ambush. No direct attacks, because they know they'll lose. And THAT is why Hizbollah is how it is. It was formed to be the terrorist force that could beat Israel, because it would fight from homes and schools nad Mosques and Churches, using civilians as shields for PR cover to garner international outrage at Israel, forcing Israel to attack civilian areas if they wanted to kill Hizbollah terrorists. But even THAT coward gutless tactic doesn't work and Hizbollah is having their genitals served up on a platter on a daily basis as the IDF and IAF has there way with Hizbollah. There is what the media reports, and there is reality. Personally, I liken this war to a sick sniffling slobbering crying child that is in the process of receiving a shot to kill a serious illness. The illness is Hizbollah, the child is the international community (sadly including much of the U.S. populace), the vaccine is Israel's military, and the Dr. is Israel, doing what has to be done, no matter how unpleasant, because it must be done for the betterment of the child, even though the child hates what's being done and wishes it would stop. Over simplistic maybe, but I think it's pretty accurate. Also in that the crying child can't do a thing to stop the administration of that shot. :)

[Reily]

Than we agree!
I misinterpreted your post.

[Phsstpok]

I misinterpreted your post.

That's clearly easy to do.  I read my own posts a few weeks later and find myself disagreeing until I figure out what it was I was trying to say.

Notice my tag line <g>

[OldFriend]

From the moment this situation in Louisiana arose I began calling various senators and asking them if they would vote to give the President the right to usurp the power of any governor in the event of an emergency.

I knew that no one would want that power for this President, and I wouldn't want it either. And I so stated.

That power was the only solution to the dithering of BlankO and the total incompetence of Nagin.

The dilemma will never be solved as long as people elect idiots to be their governor.

The media chose to ignore the real cause of the unnecessary deaths in Louisiana.

[pugmama]

Snugs...please please post your recipes for this!!

[maica]

And when the LT Gov of Maryland, who is now running for senator, said that Katrina was a failure of government, he was relating to the response of state and local govts. Because of their bias the reporters wrote stories assuming that he meant President Bush.

I have spoken to him this week, and know this is fact.

[OldFriend]

The same Lt. Governor who got himself in hot water insulting President Bush this past week in his 'off the record' comments to the media? That Lt. Governor?????????

[maica]

Re your postal workers:

I was thinking of govt workers in general, who can usually find a reason to attend a protest. I lived in Vancouver for years and saw "solidarity" in action so many times.

Do you remember the WTO meeting protests in Seattle in 1999 that turned into riots? The Ruckus Society actually held training session at the University of British Columbia in prep for the "non-violent" protests. Thousands of BC union workers went down to Seattle for the "March"

It was an amazing live demonstration of communist principles in action.

[maica]

I like that! Maximum embarrassment!

[maica]

That's the one. He did not insult the President. He was asked if having the President campaign for him in Maryland would help his campaign. He responded, He already has appeared with me in Maryland. The reporters did not put that reply in their articles. They got a "probably not" from him about the third or fourth time they pressed him, and that is what they went with. Which is a true statement, by the way, in Md. We went for Kerry about as strongly as Massachusetts did.

He could have stayed on the ticket as Lt Gov and stood a better chance of keeping a job this November. But as a Serious Republican, he agreed after Much Urging to run for Senate on the Republican ticket in a seriously deep blue state of Maryland. Conservative voters are moving to Delaware, Pennsylvania and West Va in droves.

It was Rove and Mehlman and Bush who asked him to run. He is getting a bad rap, which is what media live to do to Republicans.

[CedarDave]

That power was the only solution to the dithering of BlankO and the total incompetence of Nagin. The dilemma will never be solved as long as people elect idiots to be their governor. The media chose to ignore the real cause of the unnecessary deaths in Louisiana.

It's unfortunate that people had to die due to Blanco's intransigence. And you are right on the mark with your other two comments also. But the electorate has to be made to realize that giving even more power to the President on internal affairs, including national disasters, can and will likely lead to us losing rights traditionally and constitutionally reserved to the states. And presidents with less moral fiber than this one, or just plain corrupt as Hillary would be, would not hesitate to use such power as a means to achieve their own ends.

[TexasPatriot8]

Thank you. :)